Trends in Early Childhood Special Education ECSE

1. Trends in Early Childhood Special Education (ECSE) Collaboration with the Wider Early Childhood World Joicey Hurth, Associate Director, NECTAC 10-31-06

2. Current Impetus for Expanding Collaborative Early Childhood Initiatives • Good Start Grow Smart- Bush Administration’s initiative to strengthen Head Start, partner with states to improve early learning and widely disseminate information about early learning • 2004 Policy Forums on Young Children and Inclusion, including Child Care Bureau, the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, the Office of Head Start and the Office of Special Education Programs

3. Collaborative Projects • Expanding Opportunities is a cross agency strategic planning initiative with the goal to improve inclusive opportunities for young children with disabilities and their families • 8 States: IA, FL, AZ, MT, DE, WI, ID, TN • Smart Start, an EC initiative with state oversight, training and TA; Structured with state and local partnerships; Based on local partnership strategic plans addressing infrastructure, exiting programs and local needs; Used as a vehicle for promoting higher quality care, creating new child care spaces, and providing child care subsidies • 7 States: AZ, IA SC, AL, TN, OK, CO • The MCH Early Comprehensive Systems Grant Program to build coordinated early childhood early childhood services supported by collaborative state infrastructures • All but one state & several territories

4. Current Trends and Directions in Preschool Special Education

5. Collaborative Early Childhood (EC) Structures for Governance • All EC programs including 619 are co-located, often in a separate EC governance structure, (ie., office, department or Governor’s Council, etc) • 10 states: AZ, CT, IL, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, NC, OH, Data Source: Section 619 Profile. May 2006 , NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http://www.nectac.org/

6. Expanding Pre-Kindergarten Initiatives Provide Opportunities for Inclusion • State Funded Pre-K for Children at-risk – 33 states • Locally funded Pre-K – 26 States • Title 1 Pre- K – 26 states • Pre-K Early Reading Programs – 23 states • Universal Program for 4 year olds: GA, OK Data Source: Section 619 Profile. May 2006 , NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http://www.nectac.org/

7. Collaboratively Developed EC standards apply to all children, including children with disabilities • 39 states: AK, AR, AZ, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, IA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA,MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC,NE, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, VA, VT, WA, WI , WV, WY Data Source: Section 619 Profile. May 2006 , NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http://www.nectac.org/

8. Shared EC Standards are Basis for Reporting Progress on Child Outcomes • States report children’s progress on standards and outcomes CO, KY, MD, OR (others under development) Data source: ECO Center http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ECO/

9. Single Blended Certification for EC & ECSE • 16 States: CO, CT, FL, IA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MA, NC, OK, PA, RI, TN WI, WV Data Source: Section 619 Profile. May 2006 , NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http://www.nectac.org/

10. 11 States with an Education Lead for Part C and 619 • CNMI, GU, IA, ME, MD, MO, OK, OR, TN • Birth Mandate States - Provides Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for children with disabilities aged birth – 5) • MI, MN, NE (co-lead with HHS), SD • Not a new trend, but a legacy for some states that had legislated services for infants under Special Education before PL 99-457 created the Infant and Toddler Program Data Source: Part C Updates. July 2006 , NECTAC, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center, UNC, Chapel Hill, NC http://www.nectac.org/

11. The Data Group Asked for Information on Governance & Service Delivery From States That are Effective and Efficient • State performance varies tremendously, given the indicator or dimension of interest • For Example: The same state may have a great track record of providing services in inclusive settings, but have a poorly developed data or monitoring system and inadequate data on timeliness of service provision, or transition, etc • Therefore: we looked for states that are leading some of the EC trends, evidence of performance across available information and states with demographic similarities to ME

12. Some Disclaimers • State Performance Plans, submitted 2006, were a new OSEP requirement • For the first time, states had to report on the same indicators of performance and compliance, using the same measurements, and setting improvement targets • Many states found they had inadequate data and or data with questionable reliability to report for some indicators • We can expect performance measures to improve in the Annual Performance Reports and be a rich source of information about preschool special education

13. Selection and Profile Development Process • Identified states with collaborative initiatives exemplifying current trends • Checked performance on relevant SPP preschool indicators and OSEP letters to be sure there weren’t any major performance concerns • Used the 2005 National Institute for Early Education Research for common data across states, since state sources can include very different data and not be comparable • See Chart: Comparison of States’ Data and Performance • Interviewed 6 states on structures and practices to address some of the panel’s questions • Selection implies no judgments about the overall performance or “ranking” of states by performance

14. Highlights of State Profiles • Kentucky • Oklahoma • Arkansas • Oregon • Iowa • Massachusetts (See Handouts of State Profiles)

15. States to consider • The Data Group asked for states with similar demographics to Maine’s, which have EI and Special Education systems with good performance in effectiveness, efficiency and monitoring from which Maine might learn • Looked at SPP data from Part C indicator #1 percent of children who receive services in a timely manner and #2 percent of children served in natural environments

16. Part C SPP Performance: #1 Timeliness and #2 Natural Environments (NE) (>90%) Timely NE MT 100% 93% OK 100% 96% ND 98% 96% KY 97% 97% NH 94% 99% CT 94% 100% GA 93% 100% WV 92% 99% MN 90% 90% Other Profiled States Timely NE MA 89% 99% OR 98% 62% IA 69% 95% AR no data 77%

17. States Doing a Good Job of Monitoring & QA • NCSEAM identified the “Big 7” components of an effective General Supervision system • SPP & state goals w/ measurable targets; Effective policies and procedures; Data on processes and results; effective dispute resolution; integrated on-site and off-site monitoring; targeted TA & professional development; improvements, corrections, incentives, & sanctions • While states have effective components, its hard to determine overall effectiveness

18. Overall, General Supervision Going Well in the Following States: • Part C • MA • NM • NJ • CT • GA • Part B • OH • NY • CT • GA Thoughts from NCSEAM and NECTAC